4.7 Article

Breath Analysis Using eNose and Ion Mobility Technology to Diagnose Inflammatory Bowel Disease-A Pilot Study

Journal

BIOSENSORS-BASEL
Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/bios9020055

Keywords

inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); breath analysis; volatile organic compounds (VOCs); faecal calprotectin (FCP); electronic nose (eNose); GC-IMS

Funding

  1. Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (LPDP), Ministry of Finance, Republic of Indonesia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Early diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), remains a clinical challenge with current tests being invasive and costly. The analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled breath and biomarkers in stool (faecal calprotectin (FCP)) show increasing potential as non-invasive diagnostic tools. The aim of this pilot study is to evaluate the efficacy of breath analysis and determine if FCP can be used as an additional non-invasive parameter to supplement breath results, for the diagnosis of IBD. Thirty-nine subjects were recruited (14 CD, 16 UC, 9 controls). Breath samples were analysed using an in-house built electronic nose (Wolf eNose) and commercial gas chromatograph-ion mobility spectrometer (G.A.S. BreathSpec GC-IMS). Both technologies could consistently separate IBD and controls [AUC +/- 95%, sensitivity, specificity], eNose: [0.81, 0.67, 0.89]; GC-IMS: [0.93, 0.87, 0.89]. Furthermore, we could separate CD from UC, eNose: [0.88, 0.71, 0.88]; GC-IMS: [0.71, 0.86, 0.62]. Including FCP did not improve distinction between CD vs. UC; eNose: [0.74, 1.00, 0.56], but rather, improved separation of CD vs. controls and UC vs. controls; eNose: [0.77, 0.55, 1.00] and [0.72, 0.89, 0.67] without FCP, [0.81, 0.73, 0.78] and [0.90, 1.00, 0.78] with FCP, respectively. These results confirm the utility of breath analysis to distinguish between IBD-related diagnostic groups. FCP does not add significant diagnostic value to breath analysis within this study.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available